It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: RAY1990
I also somewhat agree with pheonix358, the pyramids or Khufu's at least was covered with white limestone and tipped with metal. Supposedly anyways.
These researchers found a correlation between small changes in decay rates and the revolution of the Sun, because it happened in 33 day cycles, which I guess is how fast the sun spins.
In this work, it is argued that the GSI radon measurements are unsuited for studying the variability of decay constants, because the data are strongly influenced by environmental conditions, such as solar irradiance and rainfall. At the JRC and PTB, decay rate measurements of the radon decay chain were performed with ionisation chambers, gamma-ray spectrometers and an alpha spectrometer. No deviation from the exponential-decay law was observed. The existence of cyclic variations in the decay constants is refuted, as well as the concept of measuring solar rotation through radioactive decay.
originally posted by: midnightstar
For carbon dating within 350 years is a direct hit in tearms of age .
But really why all the fuss ? Its not like the Egyptians did not leave lots of writings around to show when and how they built it .
I never have understood why people have such a hard time excepting the Egyptians built the stuff .
Now explane the ancient-code.com...
with some carved rocks ten times the pyramid size moved then you get my attation
originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Yeah. The recently found Merer diary from a guy in charge of moving the stones is the strongest evidence so far tying the pyramid to Khufu, but it only describes the moving of casing stones from the Tura quarry 8 miles away.
originally posted by: Harte
The accepted explanation for the dating variance is the use of "old wood." Decent wood was scarce if not absent in Egypt.There's a lot you can get out of a piece of wood before you burn it to make lime or whatever.
Harte
originally posted by: Harte
originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Yeah. The recently found Merer diary from a guy in charge of moving the stones is the strongest evidence so far tying the pyramid to Khufu, but it only describes the moving of casing stones from the Tura quarry 8 miles away.
These stones are the same ones that are described as almost miraculously well-fitted by the fringe, and had been a large part of their argument that Egyptians couldn't have built the GP.
Probably someone out there now claiming the aliens made the Egyptians do the hard work and levitated the stones into place at Giza.
Harte
originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
originally posted by: Harte
The accepted explanation for the dating variance is the use of "old wood." Decent wood was scarce if not absent in Egypt.There's a lot you can get out of a piece of wood before you burn it to make lime or whatever.
Harte
I've read that. But it's pretty thin. That's an awful lot of 374 year old wood.
originally posted by: Harte
originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
originally posted by: Harte
The accepted explanation for the dating variance is the use of "old wood." Decent wood was scarce if not absent in Egypt.There's a lot you can get out of a piece of wood before you burn it to make lime or whatever.
Harte
I've read that. But it's pretty thin. That's an awful lot of 374 year old wood.
Not really.
The age difference you're talking about is not indicated by every sample tested, just SOME of the samples tested.
Harte
originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
originally posted by: Harte
originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
originally posted by: Harte
The accepted explanation for the dating variance is the use of "old wood." Decent wood was scarce if not absent in Egypt.There's a lot you can get out of a piece of wood before you burn it to make lime or whatever.
Harte
I've read that. But it's pretty thin. That's an awful lot of 374 year old wood.
Not really.
The age difference you're talking about is not indicated by every sample tested, just SOME of the samples tested.
Harte
I don't know where you are getting that from. The articles I'm reading say 374 was the average for the 1984 study.
Then they did another wider study in 1995 using stuff from other monuments and from the work camps near the Giza pyramid, because they wanted to see if their overall dates for the period were off, and that moved the date a bit closer.
archive.archaeology.org...
It's kind of a neat trick. One study takes all of its datable material from the pyramid itself. The other gathers stuff from the nearby work camps. And then we just pretend to ourselves that we are seeing a "disagreement" between the two studies.
CONCLUSIONS
The work of Bonani et al. (2001) remains a seminal contribution to our understanding of the chronology
of Egypt, and the problems associated with 14C dating this context. Although the raw measurements
have previously been considered incompatible with historical records, particularly
Figure 4 Comparison of the 95% calibrated age ranges for the Pyramid
of Khufu. The calibrated date for the weighted average of the data (4a).
The end boundary estimate from the same data set (4b). The end boundary
when King List order is imposed on the model (4c). The historical
reign of Khufu (2589–2566 BC) is indicated by the vertical bar.
1070 M W Dee et al.
throughout the 4th Dynasty, the reanalysis offered here has challenged this interpretation. By not
eliminating any results based on the 14C measurement obtained, a level of objectivity was maintained
throughout the modeling program. The issue of variability in the data sets is indisputable and
is almost certainly caused by archaeological and taphonomic variables rather than inherent problems
with the 14C method itself. However, by focusing on the lower end of these age ranges, robust calibrations
were achieved for the completion dates of all the monuments that could be assigned to an
individual king. The most tightly constrained and data-rich sites produced the most refined calibrations,
but the entire sequence exhibited excellent agreement with the Egyptian historical chronology.